Will Biological Female Athletes Be Free to Compete Fairly?

 The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that freedom requires common sense about biological reality is a requirement. Biological men who think that they are female have stolen championships from many biological women. Some state legislatures have tried to protect the rights of biological women and girls to participate against biological women and girls.  

One such case is West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. A federal judge recently upheld the case when he rejected a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). If the ACLU had won, it would have allowed males who identify as female to compete in girls and women’s sports. Lathan Watts at The Daily Signal explained the case. 

Federal District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin had previously granted a motion for preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect while the case, B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, proceeded. Typically, this would indicate that the court was leaning toward striking down the law.

But once more complete scientific evidence and legal authority was put before Goodwin, he reversed course, vacated his previous order, and dismissed the lawsuit.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Lainey Armistead, a former West Virginia State University soccer player who intervened to defend the law on behalf of her teammates. ADF is an alliance-building, nonprofit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

“While some females may be able to outperform some males, it is generally accepted that, on average, males outperform females athletically because of inherent physical differences between the sexes,” Goodwin wrote in his decision. He continued:

This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes. Give [the challenger’s] concession that circulating testosterone in males creates a biological difference in athletic performance, I do not see how I could find that the state’s classification based on biological sex is not substantially related to its interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.

Men and women are fundamentally, biologically different, and as the judge noted, “It is beyond dispute that, barring rare genetic mutations … a person either has male sex chromosomes or female sex chromosomes,” and “a transgendered girl is biologically male.” The laws of nature and of nature’s God, centuries of history and tradition, common law, and most recently, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act all reflect this reality and self-evident truth.

Even though “this reality and self-evident truth” is evident to clear thinkers, not everyone can think clearly. Nevertheless, “Adherence to this truth is essential to protecting fairness and safety for women in sports. Rejecting reality produces immediate harm to women and girls and inevitable harm to institutions upon which our nation’s future rests.”

I do not know if the ACLU will appear the ruling at the district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit. Nor do I know if the “victory for reality” will continue or be temporary. I find it sad that such a law is necessary, and I hope that the law is sustained.